Talk:University of Huddersfield

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles

Yorkshire Mid‑importance

	Yorkshire portal University of Huddersfield is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Editathon

There will be a wikipedia editathon taking place at the University of Huddersfield on 30th March 2017. We'll be focusing on the history of the University, it's preceding institutions, significant people in its history, etc. So it is likely we'll be editing related pages and creating new ones rather than editing much on this page, but if there are new references, wikilinks etc. appearing on this page and coming from the University's IP address, that's why! WoodsieGirl (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University ratings

(I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities.)

There needs to be a broader convention about which university rankings to include in articles. Currently it seems most pages are listing primarily those that show the institution at its best (or worst in a few cases). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#University ratings. Timrollpickering 23:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tidy

Done a bit of cleaning.Itsmeltc 09:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Significant dates?

1. Who is Frederic Schwann, and what is his relevance?

2. Was the Mechanics' institute founded in 1825, as stated in the fact box, or at some point between 1844 and 1884, as stated here? AuntFlo (talk) 05:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added a reference for Schwann: http://www.hud.ac.uk/uni_history/1799-1882_Schwann.html 82.30.71.249 (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like someone has just lifted the dates from this page: http://www.hud.ac.uk/uni_history/index.html 82.30.71.249 (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

scatman john society.

i mean technically it should be removed, but i don't want to cause it's actually quite funny. some one else can deal with it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.56.12 (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to remove it -- I've worked at the uni since 2001 and have never heard of it, so I'm assuming it's a joke? 82.30.71.249 (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I attended the uni 2001-2005 and this did exist. I wasn't a member but I knew people who were, the society seemed really quite active.92.40.128.129 (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removed link

Just removed the following link as it doesn't appear to have anything to do with the University, apart from having a postal address in Huddersfield. I double-checked the University's own web site and they have no pages that link to "Connect UK Study". Davepattern (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information about the courses

NPOV violations?

This page doesn't really present a neutral point of view of the University. From the edit history, we have:

161.112.232.223 -- UoH internal IP range. This particular machine is a proxy server used by staff PCs. The whole 161.112.232.x range belongs to UOH, and possibly some other areas in 161.112.x.x as well.
CWainmoo -- a PR rep at the University. I'm sure one of the Policy-masters can comment better on this, but surely a PR rep will present an opinion biased in favour of their employer (that is, after all, the job they're hired to do).

The whole article reeks of PR spin and astroturfing.

Philpem (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I should probably clarify this a bit.

The article doesn't have a single negative thing to say about the University. Nobody's perfect, period. For one, the Student's Union newspaper (Huddersfield Student) has given the University a serious telling-off on multiple occasions. The one that springs to mind is their alleged spending of £70,000 on half a dozen lumps of rock for the main courtyard, laughably named "seats". While they look nice, they're essentially useless: they fill with condensed water and rain, and basically don't drain. So they're not even much good as seats...
Much of the editing has been done by people who work for or are otherwise associated with the University. Basically, it's all PR.
No citations for any of the praise given, other than the University website. No, that is NOT an authoritative source.

I'm tagging this NPOV -- anyone care to discuss?

Philpem (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify -- the 161.112.232.223 proxy server is used by staff and students (i.e. potentially around 25,000 people). For the record, I work at the uni and have made small edits to article (mostly to add references or tidy the page up). I'm not aware who CWainmoo is, but agree they should refrain from making any substantial changes to the article. The article seems to have changed quite a bit since I last looked at it and would agree it's starting to lose NPOV. Also, whilst the "seats" are useless in bad weather, they seem popular and well used the rest of the time. Davepattern (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the 'seats' really cost that much... I want a partial refund on my fees! I haven't seen much published that states anything noteworthy on the bad side of Hudd Uni. Only student gripes such as the bad design of the new Creative Arts building, but that's hardly wiki worthy. 78.147.195.129 (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philpem, just because the information is generally positive, that doesn't actually mean its non-neutral. Do you have any reliable sources that state negative things about the university? Note that information from a school run newspaper may not be considered a reliable source; any opinion would really only be the opinion of one student (unless there were a poll or survey). In other words, you can't say that a positive piece is POV under the presumption that everything has negative aspects. You need to provide some sort of evidence that there are negative things being left out of the article that should be added. Furthermore, you need to point out exactly which parts you see as being "praising" or "overly positive". If you don't have specific concerns, or specific, alternative, negative points, I'll remove the NPOV tag. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a former student of the university I can think of plenty of negative things. This whole wikipedia page reads like a press release. 86.145.177.232 (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:University of Huddersfield/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

.

Requires photographs
Requires references adding using on of the {{Cite}} templates
Switch existing linking external links to references using one of the {{Cite}} templates
Requires copy-edit for WP:MOS e.g. section ordering

Keith D (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 15:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on University of Huddersfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100914105055/http://www.shl.lon.ac.uk/specialcollections/archives/studentrecords.shtml to http://www.shl.lon.ac.uk/specialcollections/archives/studentrecords.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Thud student magazine.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew & Epstein scandal in article intro?

While obviously the fact that Prince Andrew was the prior Chancellor, and had to resign following the abuse controversies, is a very important one for the article, I'd seriously question whether it affords the matter undue weight by having this line in the article introduction, especially when said introduction is rather short. Given that the Chancellorship in this case is a ceremonial role with little direct effect on the running of the university itself, it seems a bit odd to state the university's name, age, location, and then suddenly link it to Epstein.

It would seem appropriate to me to move that line to the relevant section about the chancellorship. Just thought I'd ask what others thought here in case people thought differently. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight, and does not really match with Wikipedia:College and university article advice - it would be much more useful to have a slightly longer summary of the history and locations instead. EdwardUK (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]